Liberty Grotto Blog

Politics, World

Hummus also contains lots of crucial nutrients, most of which come from the tahini BTW. It has a high content of important minerals like Manganese, Copper and Sodium, and also some Calcium, Iron, Magnesium and Zinc. It is relatively reach in Vitamin C and B6 and also contain vitamin E, K, Folate and Thiamin.

Hummus also contain about 20 essential Amino Acids, including large dosages of Tryptophan,
Phenylalanine and Tyrosine, a threesome that makes it, surprisingly, a potential substitute for Prozac and the such. Omega 3 too was found to be effective in treatment for minor mood disorders, such as depression and anxiety.

http://humus101.com/EN/2007/03/21/hummus-nutrition-facts

Well Being Food

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/MRESurplus.shtml

Economy, Politics Liberty, Ron Paul

Federal Reserve, Rumor, World

A excellent write up from blog.nj.com:

The talking heads of America are outraged at Ron Paul once again. They dismissed him in 2007, dissed him in 2008 and ignored him in 2009. And now he’s got the nerve to win the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference held in Washington last weekend.

The winner of that poll is often considered the consensus leader in the race for the next GOP presidential nomination. When Mitt Romney won it last time around, he was seen as something of a sure thing in an otherwise weak field.

Well the 2012 field is even weaker than last time around. But across the spectrum, the pundits agree that the Texas congressman has no business being in it. Newsweek proclaimed Paul “probably won’t run again for president in 2012 and almost certainly wouldn’t win the Republican nomination if he did.” The Fox News crowd repeated the “Paul is dead” mantra as if the congressman were a Beatle. As for Glenn Beck, who spoke at CPAC, he termed the winner of 31 percent of the audience’s votes “a crazy, kooky guy.”

Quite an achievement for a man who may be the single most unexciting speaker in American politics today. I mean that as high praise. The U.S. Constitution is a dry, unemotional document. And Paul, as its leading proponent in Congress, is a dry, unemotional guy.

So why do his opponents get worked up into such a fervor?

I’ve been mystified by that since early in 2007, when I first interviewed him. Even though Paul had announced for the Republican nomination for president, I didn’t have to go through a press secretary to contact him. I just asked around and got his home number. We had a pleasant chat about the Constitution.

“Virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional, isn’t it?” I asked.

“Basically, that’s pretty true,” Paul replied.

Paul assured me that if elected, he would do almost nothing. I like that sort of thing, but it’s hard to put on a bumper sticker. I expected him to fade away in a field that contained crowd-pleasers like affable hayseed Mike Huckabee and 9/11 fetishist Rudy Giuliani.

I got that wrong. It turned out that young people went crazy over the then-70-year-old candidate. They raised millions for him on the internet. And his candidacy really took off after a debate in which Paul pointed out that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan had wisely avoided getting involved in the Mideast. “I think Reagan was right,” said Paul. “We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.”

This threw Giuliani into one of those fits of 9/11 nostalgia for which he is infamous. The so-called “neo” conservatives at Fox News promptly got into the act and splashed Paul’s comments all over the screen. When that just made him more popular, they reacted by trying to write him out of the race, going so far as to exclude him from a later debate.

In entirety at: blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshinete

Politics GOP, Ron Paul

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Economy, Federal Reserve, Politics Ron Paul

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Economy, Federal Reserve, Politics Ron Paul

Ron Paul appeared on CNBC Squawk Box today; everyone is fighting for the chance to interview the Congressman. Tonight Larry King will have him on his show, tomorrow he is scheduled to appear on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

Economy, Federal Reserve, Politics, World Fore, Foreign Policy, Iran, Liberty, Militarism, Peace, Ron Paul

We started this movement.

Since then our slogan, the “Tea Party” has now been co-opted for gain by those such as Glenn Beck, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and many other individuals.

We are the original grassroot supports of the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign, of which Debra Medina was apart. Debra is a true American liberty fighter and anyone who associates themselves with the tea party and does not support Debra Medina should drop the slogan.

Chuck Baldwin wrote an excellent piece today reminding everyone that the current tea party movement had nothing to do with these individuals such as Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and many others who now banter under the term the “Tea Party.”

A WARNING TO THE TEA PARTY NATION

By Chuck Baldwin
February 12, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

The Tea Parties of 2010 remind me very much of the Conservative Revolution of 1994. And if the Tea Party Nation is not very careful, they will succumb to the same fate. The signs of a silent takeover of the movement are already appearing.

First of all, the Tea Parties were actually born during the Presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas in 2007 and 2008. For all intents and purposes, the Tea Parties and the Ron Paul Revolution were one and the same. These were (mostly) young people, who were sick and tired of the same old establishment Republican Party. They were tired of establishment Republicans selling out the principles of limited government; they were tired of the US Constitution being ignored and trampled by both Republicans and Democrats; they were tired of an incessant interventionist US foreign policy that keeps sending US forces overseas to advance a burgeoning New World Order (NWO); they were tired of perpetual war; they were tired of the bank bailouts; they were tired of the Federal Reserve; etc.

I know this because I met–and spoke before–the Tea Party Nation in State after State as I campaigned for Dr. Paul during the Republican primaries back in 2008. And I met them again all over America, as I was running as an Independent candidate for President–with Ron Paul’s endorsement, no less. I was with them in scores of meetings (big and small) from Washington, D.C., to Spokane, Washington, and all points in between.

But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you’re in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.

Plus, be careful about Sarah Palin and other establishment Republicans. Palin is currently playing both sides. She is promoting Big Government neocons such as John McCain on the one hand, and sincere conservative-libertarians such as Rand Paul on the other hand. But if one wants a real barometer of Palin’s true colors, look no further than her endorsement of Rick Perry in Texas.

Perry is the quintessential establishment Republican. Perry has been in office for some 9 years, and what has he done to thwart the NWO in Texas? Nothing! Perry is even a Bilderberg Group attendee. What has he done for State sovereignty in Texas? Nothing! In fact, he supports the North American Union and the NAFTA superhighway. What has he done to resist Obama’s universal health care proposals? Nothing! What has he done to protect the citizens of Texas against an emerging Police State? Nothing! What has he done to fight illegal immigration? Nothing!

As a result of both Rick Perry’s establishment business-as-usual politics in Texas and the proliferating grassroots Tea Party movement, counterattacking establishment politics, a Tea Partier herself has entered the race for Texas governor. Her name is Debra Medina. As the Tea Party Nation in Texas already knows, Medina is one of you.

Medina is committed to preserving Texas’ independence and sovereignty. She is opposed to the Patriot Act. She will secure the Texas border. She will give Texas Vermont-style open carry freedoms for gun owners. She wants to get rid of unconstitutional property taxes in Texas. She will stop the NAFTA superhighway. Medina is the real deal.

So, what did Sarah Palin do? She went to Texas and endorsed Rick Perry! I’m sorry, ladies and gentlemen, playing political games in order to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars on the speaking and book-signing circuits is not what the Tea Parties are all about.

Tea Parties are supposed to be about putting principle over politics, supporting and defending the US Constitution, supporting limited government and personal liberty, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, ending preemptive and pervasive wars, and putting truth and integrity back into government.

Entirety at http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin569.htm

World Adam Kokesh, Debra Medina, Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, Ron Paul

Fed Exit Strategy? (An Update)

In late July of last year, I provided an analysis of the tools the Federal Reserve was proposing it might use to facilitate an exit from the substantial amount of bank reserve creation (and resultant balance sheet expansion) since September 2008 (http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2009/0729a.html). Also discussed were some of the problems I felt the Fed would encounter when attempting to execute a real exit. Months later, despite Bernanke’s recent press release concerning the Fed’s exit strategy, the Fed has not offered anything substantially new.

I would like to begin by offering that the tools the Fed is considering and the use of these tools does not constitute an exit strategy. These tools, such as the 1) continued paying of interest on bank reserves and potentially raising the interest paid on those reserves, 2) paying interest on term deposits, and 3) executing reverse repurchase agreements, are not exit tools. They are delay tactics. Paying interest on reserves (including term deposits) is simply locking up excess reserves or sterilizing them (reserves are not drained). That is, the Fed is using this as a tool to discourage banks from lending and/or investing these excess reserves into the economy, which would result in increases to the money supply and eventually price inflation (all other things being equal). Reverse repurchase agreements are temporary (short term loans to the Fed that drain reserves) … once they mature, reserves flow back into the commercial banking system. The Fed will likely use reverse repurchase agreements to test the waters this year. But this is not a permanent solution and it is debatable whether the Fed will obtain the information it seeks over such a short duration (maturities are typically less than one month), even with a comprehensive set of staggered reverse repurchase agreements.

The Fed must commence a hearty program of selling assets (assets it purchased in significant quantities since September ‘08) to execute a real exit strategy. Anything else is simply stalling and does not reduce the Fed balance sheet in any meaningful way. I outlined the problems the Fed will likely face in selling these assets in the above linked July ‘09 article. The three principal assets the Fed holds on its balance sheet are agency mortgage-backed-securities (MBSs) ($977 billion), treasuries ($777 billion), and agency debt ($165 billion). Bernanke hints that selling assets is well into the future (I have no doubt this is the case). Meanwhile, the Fed may allow maturing MBSs and select maturing treasuries to expire without rolling them over into new securities (which will drain reserves). But this will be minimally impactful to the present size of the balance sheet.

The financial press has been fixated on interest rates influenced and/or set by the Fed, particularly when the Fed might begin increasing its target rate for federal funds (currently managed between 0% and 0.25%) as well as the discount rate (currently 0.50%). But focusing on these interest rates is not keeping the proverbial eye on the ball. Monetary policy targeting the federal funds rate (and discount rate) is impotent now (as discussed in the July ‘09 article). Massive bank reserve expansion by the Fed made sure of that. Banks are presently flush with reserves. $1.16 trillion in reserves are held on deposit with the Fed alone, significantly more than the roughly $10 billion held on deposit in early September of 2008. The Fed would need to drain a significant amount of reserves from the banking system simply to get the federal funds rate to drift meaningfully north from where it is today (near zero). Bernanke knows this. This is why he suggests that the interest rate paid on reserves will play an important role in implementing its objectives (an understatement). But simply increasing this rate does nothing to drain reserves and decrease the size of the Fed balance sheet. The discount rate is mostly irrelevant as well. There is little traffic at the discount window now. Primary credit offered by the Fed shows a balance of less than $15 billion.

But by speaking out about how the Fed is going to get tough with interest rates, Bernanke can fool most into thinking that the Fed is really tackling the tough problems and is executing a real exit strategy. But he is not. He is buying time … allowing the Fed to determine the best option spread out over the longest time period possible. Such Fed actions will, however, have a psychological impact on investors accustomed to monetary policy before September of 2008 and believing that such policy is as impactful now as it was then.

At some point this year, the Fed will likely increase the interest rate it pays on reserves. The Fed may even move to increase the discount rate sooner (pinch me). In conjunction with the rate increase on reserves, the Fed will increase the target rate for federal funds to match. But this move to match will be meaningless for the reasons described above. The interest rate the Fed pays on reserves obviates the federal funds rate. As far as timing is concerned, there is not a compelling reason for the Fed to move now as it is paying only 0.25% on reserves and the banking system still has over $1 trillion in excess reserves. If the banks are not lending these excess reserves now, why would the Fed pay them even more (increase in interest on reserves) to still not lend these excess reserves … except maybe to send a little more cash their way? But again, this will not reduce the size of the Fed balance sheet.

The real action is going to be when the Fed decides it is time to seriously trim the size of its balance sheet … permanently. That will be something worth analyzing. Or are we at (or near) a new normal (as Gary North suggests) with respect to the size of the Fed balance sheet and the permanent payment of interest on reserves as the key tool in implementing monetary policy at the Fed? This will not work either.

Brian Benton

Economy, Federal Reserve, Gold Draining Reserves, Excess Reserves, Exit Strategy, Fed, Fed Balance Sheet, Monetary Base, Money Supply